should the West invade and/or bomb the fuck out of Iran?

I question this story as a pretext for "bombing" anyone. And I especially question it in light of the US's ramping-up of propaganda intended to soften up public opinion for a possibly imminent invasion. Ask yourself how many women were killed by state or quasi-state machinery LAST WEEK alone. Why is it this one we're hearing about?

Well, clearly not, at least not according to Amnesty, who tends to get this sort of thing right.

Yup. And Saddam Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant who killed his opponents, his detractors, or just about any old person he happened to find irritating. But look how wonderfully our invasion of Iraq has gone. Up for another experiment in occupation?

That has a lot to do with the fact that the drug traffic in the eastern parts of Iran aren't really regulated and because of Iran's rather arcane system of punishment. I'd guess that there's a lot more people in the Iranian system who don't serve time, but happen to be missing substantial portions of their body.

Lemme also repeat this for the thousanth time: there will not be a invasion of Iran in the forseeable future. Maybe bombing, and if so, probably by Israel, since they have the most to lose to a nuke empowered Iran. But no invasion.

is our unjust system of law an excuse for theirs? no.

that was my ONLY point above.

iraq is a better example. pointing out our hypocrisy tends to only get your point ignored. as much as we need a nationwide intervention ... for all these people that don't mind being spied on or think torture is okay... or who believe in religious freedom for themselves but not anybody else... or free speech as long as it's what they want to hear... etc etc... DENIAL is too everpresent.

it let's them focus on your negativity, not on OUR problem.
m.

It is difficult to solve other people's problems, msp. One can offer aid and assistance, but without a desire in the people you aid and assist to solve their own problems, the assistance is unavailing.

If, however, Iran wishes to cause problems for us, then they become our problems to solve and an invitation is not needed.

How would we know whether or not we're invited? Do remember, the fairly liberal reform parties in Iran were shut out of the election and the country ended up getting run by a guy some think was a terrorist/kidnapper. There were a lot of gains in Iran in the last decade and we may be on the edge of losing all of them.

but hopefully they'll just all rattle a lot of sabers, iran will keep slowly trying to get a bomb, the u.s. and europe will keep squeezing it to try to stop it, russia and china will keep playing both sides...i mean, the current situation, as unsatisfactory as it is all the way around, might be the best option for the near future.

I think the biggest difference between this and, say, Iraq (with which this episode is inexorably linked) is that Iran really does have a nuclear program that no one doubts (and that they admit) and really does have very close ties to terrorism. A stall tactic probably would work, given that most observers think that their production capability is currently near zero with no likelihood it'll progress much in the immediate future.

please to place bets as to when the airstrikes will start.

i would say ... june at the latest.

There's no proof that this is true -- the only source of info seems to be the Iranian govt and it wouldn't shock me if they're greatly exaggerating the capabilities of their weaponry.

This is nothing but a power play by Iran to get the UN off its back. You think it's a coincidence that Iran released this information the day after the UNSC passed a resolution giving them 30 days to suspend uranium enrichment and cooperate with the IAEA? Screw the earthquake, this took precedence.

The biggest potential losers here are the UN. They gave a similarly meaningless ultimatum to Sudan and choked that time too but a lot more people are paying attention this time. Be prepared to say goodbye to whatever little credibility the Security Council has left.

We're just being primed and primed, and then there's going to be some trigger event, perhaps staged, perhaps provoked, and then boom, draft. My brother had better stay in college if he knows what's good for him.

xpost

a draft is not that likely, I do not think the USA will ever fight another meatgrinder war again. Or at least, not one where it's meat is being ground.

as to war with Iran... I don't really see it. Iraq is such a fuck up, and the Iran dress rehearsal in Lebanon did not go that well, so it is hard to see bombing Iran accomplishing anything and hard to see the USA invading.

I wonder will the world just have to learn to live with Iranian nuclear weapons, like it has had to live with those of the USA, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel?

Ha ha ha! Don't worry about anything, leave it all to the security council. THAT'S a proven strategy, alright.

Political feasibility is not the issue. Military feasibility is the issue. America doesn't have the resources to invade Iran. Bomb Iran, maybe. Invade, no way.

This is a non-starter. America is not going to invade Iran.

The problem being, the Iranian leadership's worldview is even MORE apocalyptic then Bush's. They're like, the Pat Robertsons of Islam.

Iran and the Us are much alike. big democracies, both with faults in their democratic process. Both with a history of state sponsorship of terror (Iran with hezbollah and in Iraq now, the US all over south america in the past, in afghanistan in the 80s the hot wars could be called terror as well). Both have a strong religious leaning, both are naturally conservative with a very dynamic youth culture.

Think about it. No matter how you can point to how the Iranians gerrymandered their last election, a hell of a lot of people voted for Amedinhejad. They made a choice.

*tho i don't think the latter is likely to happen.